1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Book project: Water Harvesting – Guidelines to Good Practice (Water Harvesting)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Reach Africa (Reach Africa)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Reach Italia (Reach Italia) - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A special tractor-pulled plow that constructs micro-catchments. It combines the traditional techniques of rainwater harvesting with mechanization for large scale land rehabilitation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The Technology mechanizes the traditional technique of zai and semi circular bunds for water harvesting using a modified plow named Delfino3s pulled by a 180hp tractor. A normal plow on flat land excavates a symmetrical, continuous furrow, and earth piles up equally on both sides of the furrow. The Delfino3s plow has a single reversible plowshare that creates an angled furrow and piles up the excavated soil in half moon shaped ridges only on the downhill side. The plowing must be done along the contour to collect and slows down runoff water as it flows downhill. The plow’s blade moves in and out of the soil creating micro basins about 5 meters long, 50 cm deep, 50 cm wide and spaced 2-3 m. The ripper placed before the plow cracks up the soil to a depth of 70 cm facilitating the infiltration of water into the soil profile and the growth of deep roots. After plowing, the local population sows seeds of plants of indigenous species. They are sown along the ridges of the basins and in the furrow of the ripper. While for most species seeds are collected by the local population, for species rarely present in the region, seeds are purchased from tree nurseries. Sowing the manure of goat containing seeds has also been very successful with about 95% of all micro basin having at least one tree growing. The intervention on a big scale, the effects of water infiltration in depth, erosion reduction and vegetation growth, boost a long lasting rehabilitation process. Each day the Delfino plow can plow up to 20 ha, digging 6.000-7.000 micro basins. The speed, the capability to plow hard, abbandoned land, the effectiveness of the Delfino3s plow are its major advantages for the ecosystem rehabilitation process but require a big commitment. To make the best out of it, a great motivation and organizational work is necessary to: find great availability of land; train accuratelly the technicians; have well-rooted Subjects in the region. The technological aspect is just part of the recovery process, an important work with the Communities is required upstream and downstream. Communities are involved in the management process – in identifying the areas to be restored, clarifying the land uses of the affected areas, planning and implementing e.g. gathering and keeping seeds of local ecotypes, sowing, in the management of plantations and in the monitoring and evaluation of the results. Rules for SLM are adopted and respected by all. The Technology is applied in a degraded agro-sylvo-pastoral area of the Sahel Region, in the north east of Burkina Faso with 200-500 mm of annual rainfall. The soil is sandy-loam, strongly degraded with surface crust. The population is mainly composed of semi-nomadic herders. At the beginning of the project, the NGO Reach Italia was promoting schooling; they soon realized that during the dry season most kids left school and that to avoid it they should face food security and pasture improvement. So they started applying the Vallerani System and developped the participatory approach. The vegetation growth reduces the need for fodder search and long-range transhumance which also allows children to go to school regularly.The ecosystem rehabilitation effect of the technology help the communities to become more concious and resilient to the effects of climate change and prepared to cope with the socio-economic-environmental changes they are faced with.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The Technology was introduced in the Region in an agro-sylvo-pastoral pilot project to fight against desertification by FAO in 1996-97.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• mitigate climate change and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Silvo-pastoralism

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Land degradation-desertification with reduction of vegetation cover in terms of plant density and species diversity is the main problem: disappearance of grasses and trees, reduction of the size of the plants that are resistant and of the biological activity of the soil. Runoff, water and wind erosion increase. Drought and irregular precipitation have heavy consequences on soil fertility, availability of water for humans and livestock, and recharging groundwater.

Number of growing seasons per year: 1

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• pastoralism and grazing land management
• water harvesting

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use , such as wood cut for cooking, to feed livestock or as building material, overgrazing, low contribution of animal dejections that are used as cooking fuel, change of seasonal rainfall, droughts. Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires), low environmental awareness and support services such as forestal or veterinary assistance.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Project planning, consulting and training	Before starting
2.	Plowing with the Delfino plow	Dry season
3.	Seed harvesting and storage	When seeds are ripe
4.	Missing seeds purchase in local markets or nurseries	When seeds are ripe
5.	Direct sowing	Dry season

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The NGO REACH AFRICA which implements the project is also supported by REACH ITALIA which mainly works for foundraising. They have many different founders. After the first years, thanks to the collaboration and founding by the Swiss Association Deserto Verde Burkinabé and the good results achieved, founders are more likelly to be found. The main are: different NGO's, some Italian Municipalities, a Swiss school, the Gouvernement of Burkina Faso, FAO, international cooperation agencies of Luxembourg and Belgium, a mining company and others.

Comments:

The actual (2018) total cost of each implemented hectare is $ 170. This cost can be considerably reduced by around 22% in the case of an optimal use of the Technical Mechanization Unit, ie 800-1000 hours of work per year. This means that an operator who works with the plow Delfino has a gross investment cost which can vary according to its technical and organizational experience and by the amount of the plowed surface each year.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Pasture management to avoid overgrazing	After the rain and in the dry season
2.	Vegetation growth management	During the first 3-5 years
3.	Woodcut management	After 4-7 years
4.	Equipment maintenance (plow, tactor)	Daily, weekly, seasonal

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The NGO REACH AFRICA which implements the project is also supported by REACH ITALIA which mainly works for foundraising. They have many different founders. After the first years, thanks to the collaboration and founding by the Swiss Association Deserto Verde Burkinabé and the good results achieved, founders are more likelly to be found. The main are: different NGO's, some Italian Municipalities, a Swiss school, the Gouvernement of Burkina Faso, FAO, international cooperation agencies of Luxembourg and Belgium, a mining company and others.

Comments:

Maintenance costs of plow and tractor greatly depend from the attention and technical skills of tractor drivers and mechanics and from the diligence and frequency of the maintenance activities of the implements. No other maintenance costs are forseen for the Technology.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Upfront costs for the aquisition of the required implements are around 40,000 EUR for the plow and 75,000 EUR for the tractor. Depending on the maintenance activities, the spares and fuel costs can be reduced. Fuel, oil and spares also greatly depend from the characteristics of the soil and the purpose of the project.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Generally the watertable is lowering. Surface water is collected in boulies (ponds) for livestock and household activities. Its quality deteriorates during the dry season and its quantity decreases fast.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Up to 30-50 years ago biodiversity was rich and soil coverage higher.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

During the dry season men often migrate(d) to the nearby mines or cities for off-site income. After the implementation of the Technology the need for seasonal migration reduced. Difference in gender involvement: the project involves reforestation and pasture improvement for the grazing of livestock which is a men dominated activity. Since 2010 women have sown and protected from grazing some special plants for medical and domestic use and as raw material for handcrafts. Population density: 10-50 persons/km2. Annual population growth: 3% - 4%. Off-farm income specification: The only activity people of the region are engaged in is goat and cattle breading. Crop production is practiced only for subsistence use.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state
• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	very well
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	very well
annual rainfall		decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	moderately
local sandstorm/ duststorm	very well
local windstorm	very well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood	not well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

The system includes the use of a heavy duty tractor and a special plow whose costs are high though difficult to sustain by the local population. Most financial costs are covered by founders and donors, the land user's partecipate to the project with their work so even if the benefits in the short term are fewer than in the mid and long-term, for them it is still very positive.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

330 villages and around 33.000 beneficiaries

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 51-90%

Comments:

Except for plowing, the other activities part of the Technology are practicable by the population under an initial guidance of a promoter with specific training. These are done without any material incentives/payments. The technology is well known in the Region and there is an active participation of the local people and a strong demand for new interventions.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

other (specify):

technical

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

The design of the plow has been adapted to increase the performance of the implement and reduce the running costs of plowing. The reversibility of the plowshare reduces the need for empty rides. The different parts of the plow are adjustable to adapt it to the needs of the project and the soil characteristics.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Higly degraded, abandoned land becomes fertile and rentable again. Fodder increases in quantity and improves in quality and lasts all year round. Food security also in drought years. Herds are healthier and more productive. Fodder and water availability for animals is closer to the villages. Some plants can be sown for different uses: crops, medicine or for the production of mats or other handcrafts products that can be sold.
Better life conditions, more income opportunities and diversification. Food is diversified and more nutritious. Less hunger and deseases.
Greater community cohesion and less migration, better environnemental conciousness and commitment, education and security. People gain back dignity, confidence in the future and hope.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The Technology allows the rehabilitation of rangeland and highly degraded areas in a fast and natural way on a large scale. This can boost a longlasting effect and the shift of the whole ecosystem. The Technology confers drought resilience and reduces the effects of climate change. It allows the sequestration of CO2 and can contribute to achieve the Land Degradation Neutrality Goals.
The partecipatory approach is essential for the sustainability of the project. The local Communities improve their life quality, awareness, cohesion and resilience. The need for migration is reduced and people has the chance to stay in their Lands.
The sown tree and shrub species are mainly indigenous and locally adapted species. Each specie can follow it's own growing laws and adaptation strategies. Through the tillage process the technology offers the highest degree of efficiency in the first years from processing. Its effects last for a long time so it does not need to be repeated on the same site.
The VS does not use any water (except rain) in countries where water is rare and precious.
The use of a mechanized implement allows to rehabilitate very hard, degraded and abbandoned land on large areas with reduced population. As the Delfino3s can plow strongly degraded land, the local people often ask to work their worse land which they would never be able to use.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Land that was unproductive and nobody claimed becomes productive: it can lead to misunderstandigs and conflicts.	Land use and production exploitation rules must be cleared and accepted by all Subjects at the beginning of the project.
Good pasture attracts animals and herders from the nearby Region (also from far away and abroad).	Rules must be clear.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The investmentand running costs for the machinery are high and cannot be covered by single land users or small Communities.	The projects must be financed by donors or founders. The Community can partecipate to some extent to cover the running costs.
The speed and effectiveness of the Delfino3s plow are its major advantages in the ecosystem rehabilitation process but can also be its major limitation. To make the best out of it, it is necessary to have a great availability of land (1.000-1.800ha) every year.	A big organizational capacity is needed. The spreading "like wildfire" that has characterized the case study was possible by the presence on the territory of an NGO already active and rooted in the territory for many years and by perseverance, respect and competence of all involved subjects.
Since great extentions will be processed, a big organisation is needed for all connected activities (awareness raising, seed collection and stockage, training, logistics, etc),	Must be well organized and should operate already before starting with plowing.
The professional level of the tractor drivers and the mechanics as well as the lack of a well-organized mechanical workshop and spares stock can lead to long interruptions of the work and high extra costs.	Professional technical trainings and monitoring are very important. The organization of a well managed mechanical workshop and spares stock are essential. This can also be a great development opportunity for the Region.
The increased amount of fodder can induce the shepherds to increase the number of animals.	An important work with the Communities is essential to achieve shared and sustainable management goals.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Un "delfino" rinverdisce i deserti, Venanzio Vallerani, ISBN 978-88-95858-05-0

Available from where? Costs?

info@vallerani.com

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Récupération des sols fortement dégradés à des fins sylvo-pastorales, CILSS 2009

URL:

http://www.vallerani.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rapport-Reach-Cills-2009.pdf

Title/ description:

GIZ, Good practices in soil and water conservation, pag. 22 seg.

URL:

https://www.giz.de/fachexpertise/downloads/giz2012-en-soil-water-conservation.pdf

Title/ description:

Using Mechanized Water Harvesting System (The Vallerani System ) for Rehabilitation of Degraded ASALs in Kenya

URL:

http://www.vallerani.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Meshack-Muga-Paper-25-Final.pdf

Title/ description:

Report for the Sino-Italian cooperation project, SFA, China

URL:

http://www.vallerani.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Report_in_English-10.pdf

Title/ description:

Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands FAO, pag. 104 seg.

URL:

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5036e.pdf

Title/ description:

Improved rainwater harvesting for fodder shrub production and livestock grazing: the Vallerani micro-catchment system in the Badia of Jordan

URL:

http://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1040697/

Title/ description:

Conedera, M., N. Bomio-Pacciorini, et al. 2010. Reconstitution des écosystèmes dégradés sahéliens. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 304(2). Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 304(2). Bois et Forêts des Tropiques

URL:

http://www.vallerani.com/images/Reconstitution.pdf